192 votes

A call for unity between Paul supporters and Johnson supporters.

I have seen the war between Ron Paul supporters and Gary Johnson supporters and I think it is rather silly that people in this movement have such a hard time following Ron Paul's advice. It is pretty simple to me.

We can not force our goodwill on anyone, we can only set good examples and hope people wish to emulate us. --Ron Paul

My suggestion would be that if you support Gary Johnson, fine support him. That is what freedom is. If you support Ron Paul, fine. Most of us here do support Ron Paul and have for several years. If you support both fine, but lets stop eating our own.

The goal should be to grow the liberty movement not divide it. Great movements are always destroyed from within, not the other way around.

I have seen the arguments from both sides and many statements are misguided. The whole notion that some claim they are turned off on Gary Johnson because Johnson supporters are trying to cram Johnson down your throats is the same excuse where many called people that didn't support Ron Paul sheep because, those people claimed they wouldn't support Ron Paul because Ron Paul supporters tried to force Paul on them. Do you see how silly that argument is?

How can anyone force anyone else to support someone?

My suggestion would be if you are not going to support Johnson fine, don't result to name calling of Johnson supporters, this makes you no better than the people that did the same thing to Ron Paul that pisses us off. Talking to people in a civil manner goes a long way, insulting them is counter productive and will accomplish nothing more than to isolate people that may share many of the same things you support.

You may not like the people you are working with, they may not like you, but we are all supposed to be working towards the same goal. So why don't we start with the things we agree on first and worry about the rest later?

Michael Badnarik said this best: We agree with each other about 98% of the time on most issues but, we spend 98% of the time b!tching, complaining and arguing about the 2% we disagree on, this is why nothing gets done, and he is correct!

You don't like a post? Don't read it, it is easy to ignore posts and comments. You don't have to agree with people but you do need to find a way to work together to grow the movement and attempt to effect real change this country needs or we will accomplish nothing. Take the high road and let freedom work for a change.

For the record I have not given my support to Gary Johnson although I did spend some private time with him at Paulfest in Tampa because I was paulfest staff and had access to Gary. My vote is just that MY VOTE! I will not tell others what to do with their vote -- please don't tell others what to do with theirs. Set good examples and educate them in a civil manner, you will win more people over that way in the long and short term.

If we continue down this US vs THEM attitude we only divide our numbers even more. I prefer to follow Ron Paul's example of integrity and I hope you will as well.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

RP and GJ differ on abortion:

RP and GJ differ on abortion:

Johnson is pro-choice: "A qualified yes. Johnson believes that a woman has the right to decide on the matter until a point of the viability of the fetus has been reached." http://2012.presidential-candidates.org/Johnson/Abortion.php

Ron Paul is pro-life: "Dr. Paul’s experience in science and medicine only reinforced his belief that life begins at conception, and he believes it would be inconsistent for him to champion personal liberty and a free society if he didn’t also advocate respecting the God-given right to life—for those born and unborn."

Advocates "Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.”

From what I see the main difference is GJ's viability of life issue compared with RP's conception stance. When one speaks of viability it can yeild to defining personhood according to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing...

"Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’."

So I ask: At what point does a "person" uh, I mean a "human" become a person or quit being a person? That is the issue facing humanity in the upcoming years. At what point does one become a useless eater either in the mother's womb or in that of the society?

So, shall we let the states decide? Or shall we decide on the side of life?

Good point re Johnson/Paul on abortion.

Good point re Johnson/Paul on abortion.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Thank you.


Mike G.

I still don't think people see the bit of irony here.

(I tried to explain below. Maybe not well, but oh, well.)

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Please see my post above

Please see my post above yours. I am trying to figure out what to do and I am pro life.

RP and GJ on abortion.

RP and GJ do not have the same views on abortion.

Johnson is pro-choice: "A qualified yes. Johnson believes that a woman has the right to decide on the matter until a point of the viability of the fetus has been reached." http://2012.presidential-candidates.org/Johnson/Abortion.php

Ron Paul is pro-life: "Dr. Paul’s experience in science and medicine only reinforced his belief that life begins at conception, and he believes it would be inconsistent for him to champion personal liberty and a free society if he didn’t also advocate respecting the God-given right to life—for those born and unborn." http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion

Re abortion, there are two issues.

1. What does the candidate personally think about abortion? Intelligent, caring people can disagree. Some consider it a moral issue because they view abortion at any stage as akin to murder. Others don't see it as a moral issue in that way because they consider there to be salient differences at the various stages of development between conception and birth, the question being, "When are we (full-fledged) human beings, one might say, in our own right, namely, such that we would be warranted Constitutional protection?

For some, that time is conception; or once there is a spinal column and brain (ability to "sense" things); or at the point of viability, when organs are sufficiently formed so that the fetus/baby could live on its own, separate from the mother); or, at birth and the taking of the first breath (which some believe is connected to the spirit). Some people might consider abortion immoral, though not a crime, let alone murder (such as they might also consider premarital sex immoral, though not criminal). Others consider it a moral issue, too, but on behalf of the mother - throughout pregnancy or up to a point. These questions involve religion, philosophy, and science. People simply see it differently, and there isn't any "proving" who is right. It boils down to belief.

2. What would the candidate intend to DO about it, if anything? This raises the issue of the role of government, that is, not abortion, per se. The role of the federal government as per the Constitution is rather limited! And those powers/rights NOT specified are to be left to the states, or the people. IF the candidate believed abortion to be not only immoral but a crime, what would be the appropriate governing body to have the responsibility to handle that?

What miked422 did was to point out a certain irony here between Johnson and Paul. (See above, "Am I the only one.")

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Big Thank You!

for your Ustream work! Thank you also for this information. I would like to quote it as I am having many people tell me GJ is the same as RP on the issue.

You're welcome!

That is why I had it ready, because I've had so many people tell me they are the same when in reality they are not even close.


What are you thinking about doing come election day, if I am not being too forward. I trying to find my way. I am finding some disheartening things about Virgil Goode on civil liberties regarding the patriot act.

I do not support Johnson on the viability issue regarding abortion.

Are you aware of any other candidates that come close to Ron Paul?

What am I going to do on election day?

Since there is no Presidential candidate I can vote for, I will go to the polls and vote for the local candidates whom I support, and leave the presidential voting block empty.

Yes, that was my plan if I

Yes, that was my plan if I could not find a presidential candidate I could vote my conscience. However, I had someone comment to me on the DP that a blank portion of a ballot can lend itself to tampering. I don't know how true that was. I can try to find the comment if you are interested. Otherwise, I am just throwing that out there to you as it was thrown to me. Thank you again for all you have done for Ron Paul and Liberty! I believe you did the Ustream for OK. It was a pleasure for me to take part in that epic outdoor meeting while at my home in Missouri!

Yes, I am the live streamer from Oklahoma!

We also live streamed Nebraska and Texas, and filmed Arkansas. We then also went to Tampa and live streamed! Thank you! Our facebook page is http://www.facebook.com/group/LibertyLiveStreamTeam

THanks for the info on voting as well.

I am getting Facebook Page

I am getting Facebook Page not Found when trying the link you sent. Can you double check?

I called watching the OK stream a pleasure...actually it was exhilarating!

Sorry about that

What can we do?

I like this post in that we should be working towards a common goal regardless of who we will each vote for in November. I think a lot of people would agree that it would be beneficial for the Liberty Movement if Gary Johnson were to at least be included in the Presidential Debates. That being said, what can we start doing NOW to help make this happen for him? The obvious option is to donate to his campaign, but in addition to that I'm sure there could be a lot of things we could come up with. For example, I'm sure there are some Liberty supporters out there who are really good at video editing and could come up with some short but convincing videos showing the public that they don't just have to choose between the lesser of two evils. With the right level of humor and message, perhaps we could get some videos to go viral and cause more people to answer those polling phone calls in favor of Gary Johnson to at least get him on the debate stage.

Open for discussion!

Time to Vote for the Lesser of Three Evils

We've pinched our noses a half dozen times over the last 20 years and voted for the Lesser of Two Evils. Well now we have a viable 3rd choice (arguably we've had it before) in the Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson.

Why in the world would we choose the Greater or Middle of Three Evils when we can again follow tradition and Choose the Lesser of all Three?!

Gary Johnson is far less "Evil" than the D or R candidates. They absolutely STINK! There is a 100% chance that if you vote for the D's or R's this time that your vote will be WASTED!

Don't waste your vote. While I'm suspicious that our votes for GJ will not be counted correctly, we'll all know who we voted for. Tyranny will not end easily.

I often wonder if any vote is

I often wonder if any vote is actually counted. I'm starting to think that the election is predetermined. Perhaps the election is just a poll to see if the masses are still asleep. Idk...just a thought.

I'm suspicious as well

With electronic voting machines, our votes are easily molested. The current voting machines have ZERO safeguard against tampering. A recount is pointless, if a different result occurs, you know for a fact the programming does not work.

Central Planning is the root of all of our Republic's ills. I'm not confident that getting Paul or Johnson into the White House will do any immediate good, however if we begin to manage our own communities and households, we have a great reason to stop paying the Feds to do it.

That goes for our Currency as well. Centrally Planned currency is just as bad as CP Government. The CP's solution to bad planning is always more planning, or in the case of Currency, more Currency.

Paul or Johnson can only help stop the tyranny, we have to do most of the work Locally for any positive change to occur.

Wasted vote

aka all votes.

aka all votes.

End The Fed!
BTC: 1A3JAJwLVG2pz8GLfdgWhcePMtc3ozgWtz


If you're calling Gary Johnson the "lesser of three evils" then that implies that he's evil. (No argument on the other two.)

Ron Paul described Gary Johnson as "wonderful." So you can reject the two evils, and vote for a wonderful candidate. Now doesn't that sound better?

Government is often called a Necessary Evil

So it is best to choose a government/governor that is the Least Necessary. The more we are dependent upon government or the decisions of governors (Presidents, Senators, Congress, etc), the more Evil we have to suffer.

We've been stuck with the Lesser of Two Evils since 1856, it would be really nice to see a Lesser of Three Evils compete. Not saying Johnson is evil, just saying the position he is vying for is.

Who will be the Least Evil or most Limited in making decisions for us.

GJ is weak on foreign policy.

GJ is weak on foreign policy. He panders to Israel.


That's not enough to keep Ron Paul from thinking that GJ is "wonderful," so what point are you trying to make?

If you're just pointing out that GJ is not a perfect candidate and falls short of Ron Paul, then of course. Who denies that?

Foreign policy is a big issue

Foreign policy is a big issue that everyone should consider when voting. Why would you vote for someone who panders to Israel?

It's a huge issue

And the context in which we're discussing this (the post you replied to) was me pointing out that Ron Paul said that Gary Johnson is "wonderful" and doing a "good job" and although he wasn't endorsing anyone people should "look at" Gary Johnson and make up their own minds.

No candidate is perfect, but are you denying that Ron Paul thinks that *overall* it's reasonable to describe Gary Johnson as "wonderful" and "doing a good job"? And that Ron Paul thinks that Gary Johnson is worth looking at, in the context of a question about who to vote for?

Now to your point. Gary Johnson opposes foreign aid to Israel (or any other country). So right there is a huge difference in terms of what you're calling "pandering" when you try to lump him in with Romney and Obama. He says that Israel is an ally, but he says that there's no evidence to support the claim that Iran is a threat and he wouldn't support Israel going to war against Iran under the current circumstances or join them in that war if they did go to war. You can call it pandering if you want but if so it's a kind of pandering that would not come close to satisfying the Romney/Obama/neocon idea of what it means to support Israel.

He's no Ron Paul, but he's not a Romney or Obama either. I'm not asking you to like or support him, just be fair about it. Don't swallow highly slanted descriptions, like saying he "panders" to Israel, that hide the real differences in the interest of smearing him as being like Romney and Obama.

If nothing else, just let it sink in that there's nothing so bad about him that Ron Paul wasn't able to call him "wonderful" and suggest that in considering who to vote for he's not endorsing anyone at present but Gary Johnson is someone he thinks you should look at, and make up your own mind about. But you can't do that fairly based on misleading smears.

Ok...correct me if I am wrong

Ok...correct me if I am wrong but didn't he say he would cut foreign aid to everyone but Israel?

Paul also stated that

Paul also stated that romney's speech at the rnc was pleasant and nice. That's just the kind of old school guy Paul is. He's got class. I don't remember hearing, he's wonderful - go vote for him, or an endorsement. No, I heard that Paul intends to stay in the race until november and intends to "keep plugging along".

Oh come on

Saying that a candidate said "a lot of nice things" is a small step better than saying "his hair looked good." Go listen to that response *in context*, and compare it to what he said about Johnson *in context*, and pay attention to his tone. He's damning Romney with faint praise there.

You're right (and this seems to be important to a lot of people so let's be very clear about this) that Ron Paul did not *endorse* Gary Johnson. Those who are looking for marching orders will have to wait, and should prepare for the possibility that they may have to think for themselves as a last resort.

What he actually *did* say, when asked whether he would endorse Johnson, was "I think he’s wonderful, and I think he’s doing a good job and people should look at him and every individual should make up his own mind." So if you're waiting for Ron Paul to tell you what to do, he said you "should look at" Gary Johnson, and he got you started by saying that *he* thinks Gary Johnson is "wonderful" and "doing a good job." And again this "look at" Gary Johnson comment was in the context of who to vote for.

BTW if you're suggesting that Ron Paul is still trying to get onto the ballot this November, on any ticket, you're twisting his words.